The CSA (Opinions)

[GhostWriter16]

Alright, this was brought up in another thread. The CSA isn't a popular thing to get into detail on. People just say, "I support states rights, therefore I support the CSA!" Which, doesn't work.

The Confederates had slaves, but someone I know who thinks they should have won says while it was wrong it wouldn't have lasted long. I kind of see his point, however, again, it is wrong. That being said, if Canada or Mexico was conducting such a practice today, I'd tell them to release their slaves. If they refused, I would invade them to free them. I would have applied the same logic to the Confederates. However, a better question is, did they have the right to secede?

I am unsure ATM. The Constitution doesn't really say, and the 10th Amendment sort of implies that they can. However, if states can leave on a whim the Federal government is nothing, and at that time the Federal Government was following the constitution. With all the nasty, unconstitutional stuff going on in the United States, such as our nation having already denied 40 Million the right to live (Hint, I'm not referencing the death penalty, something I agree with) Denying citizens their God-given right to bear arms, the government pushing a religion of secularism, and other such things, I'm not quite sure I could oppose it today.

In other words, I ideally support the Confederates. In reality, its not quite so. Slavery is the one thing that makes it impossible for me to support them. The fact that the federal government was following the constitution is really only a minor point.

So, the purpose of this discussion is to-

For pro-CSA People, convince me slavery wasn't enough of an issue to fight over

For Anti-CSA People, Convince me of other reasons then slavery the CSA should not have been allowed to exist, and if that logic still applies today.

 

[civver_764]

I think states can secede only if a referendum is held, the people as a whole need to decide.

I think all 50 states need to be their own countries at this point. Well, ideally states wouldn't even exist and society would exist through anarchist associations but that's for a different thread. The country is a bit too big in my opinion.

 

[Communisto]

take it to world history.

Also, they had the right to secede.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I think states can secede only if a referendum is held, the people as a whole need to decide.

I think all 50 states need to be their own countries at this point. Well, ideally states wouldn't even exist and society would exist through anarchist associations but that's for a different thread. The country is a bit too big in my opinion.

1. Realistically, I don't think they should be their own countries, China would start picking us off bit by bit, but I would like to see a new CSA, if only to last a year, to challenge their authority (Don't worry about slavery, it won't be back.)

2. Communism doesn't work, I see it.

take it to world history.

Also, they had the right to secede.

1. Not sure if this would be world history. This thread is more about the modern right to secede but partially also about history.

2. I sort of agree with that, but I think that them having slavery was wrong enough for Lincoln to go to war over.

 

[Princeps]

States have no rights by definition. States have powers.

 

[GhostWriter16]

States have no rights by definition. States have powers.

What's the difference?

 

[civver_764]

1. Realistically, I don't think they should be their own countries, China would start picking us off bit by bit, but I would like to see a new CSA, if only to last a year, to challenge their authority (Don't worry about slavery, it won't be back.)

2. Communism doesn't work, I see it.

1. Why the hell would China do that?

2. Considering you don't even know what communism is...

 

[Communisto]

2. I sort of agree with that, but I think that them having slavery was wrong enough for Lincoln to go to war over.

Lincoln stated many times leading up to the outbreak and during the early years of the war that the conflict was strictly a struggle to maintain the union. Slavery was only a minor issue until it was used as a political maneuvering in order to block GB and France from stepping in on the side of the cotton producing states later in the war.

 

[GhostWriter16]

1. Why the hell would China do that?

2. Considering you don't even know what communism is...

1. China hates the US, as does the Middle East. Also, the world would fall into socialism and authoritarianism even more without the Americans keeping it in check. They're not doing a good job though.

2. Let's not discuss Communism in this thread.

@Communisto- I know, which is what makes it tougher to support the Union:

What Lincoln Said: I will save the Union, whether it means freeing no slaves or freeing them all

What I would have Said: I will free the slaves, whether it means preserving the Union or letting it fall.

Lincoln had the wrong motive, but ultimately did the right thing. Hence, I support him. I still recognize his mistakes.

 

[Silurian]

Child Support Agency!!!

 

[Ayn Rand]

I wish I knew more about this subject. My [limited] understanding is that the North continually provoked the South and pushed them into seceding? I don't think slavery was the real issue for the war but was just a justification for ruthless power politics that suited the bigots in the Northern states.

So the question is not just whether the South had the right to secede, because deliberate provocations designed to force such a secession were being committed against them [trying to destroy the South's economic and social base].

 

[Princeps]

such as our nation having already denied 40 Million the right to live (Hint, I'm not referencing the death penalty, something I agree with) Denying citizens their God-given right to bear arms, the government pushing a religion of secularism, and other such things, I'm not quite sure I could oppose it today.

Yada yada. How many times do we have to go through this. 1. If you oppose abortion on the grounds that human institutions cannot deprive the (supposed) right to life from other humans, you can't support the death penalty in the same sentence, because the death penalty is defined and implemented by just as fallible human institutions. 2. The right to bear arms is not god given. God doesn't confer you any rights, because he doesn't intervene to protect them (because he doesn't exist but his existence is another debate). 3. Secularism is not a religion: its a philosophy that states that the government and its institutions should remain separate from religion and religious believes. No amount of word-twisting can define secularism as a religion: it doesn't adhere to any supernatural belief systems.

I don't think slavery was the real issue

Look, yes it was. The Southern plantation owners, who dominated Southern economy and politics, benefited from slavery and were therefore spectacularly rich. They were far wealthier than the "robber barons", industrialists and railroad tycoons of the north. Their wealth was subsidized by the devastation of Africa's population. These people thought they'd lose everything if the north prevailed.

Slave trade damaged Southern economy greatly because the availability of cheap agricultural workers meant that the agricultural sector was always prioritized over industrial development. Agriculture was seen as an secure and profitable investment.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I wish I knew more about this subject. My [limited] understanding is that the North continually provoked the South and pushed them into seceding? I don't think slavery was the real issue for the war but was just a justification for ruthless power politics that suited the bigots in the Northern states.

So the question is not just whether the South had the right to secede, because deliberate provocations designed to force such a secession were being committed against them [trying to destroy the South's economic and social base].

By "Economic System," are you referring to slavery or the other parts such as agriculture and cotton? If the latter, I agree with your point. I am against economic regulation. You do have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Due to the bolded word, slavery is against the constitution.

Yada yada. How many times do we have to go through this. 1. If you oppose abortion on the grounds that human institutions cannot deprive the (supposed) right to life from other humans, you can't support the death penalty in the same sentence, because the death penalty is defined and implemented by just as fallible institutions. 2. The right to bear arms is not god given. God doesn't confer you any rights, because he doesn't intervene to protect them (because he doesn't exist but his existence is another debate). 3. Secularism is not a religion: its a philosophy that states that the government and its institutions should remain separate from religion and religious believes. No amount of word-twisting can define secularism as a religion: it doesn't adhere to any supernatural belief systems.

1. No, I don't support murder. The death penalty is punishment for a crime. What crime did the aborted baby commit? At worst, his crime was that his/her father raped his/her mother, but that is not the baby's fault. If anything, its the rapist that needs to die, not the baby.

I'm not discussing the rest, as its so off topic, but number 1 was important IMO.

 

[Princeps]

1. No, I don't support murder.

The concept of murder is entirely contextual to the legal system. The legal system can legalize the killing of people (enemy soldiers) during wartime for example. Murder means the illegal killing of a person, not any killing of a human.

The death penalty is punishment for a crime.

Again, its a punishment by fallible institutions for crimes defined by fallible institutions.

What crime did the aborted baby commit?

What crime did the "criminal" commit and can we trust fallible human institutions enough to enact such a final and irreversible punishment? I didn't know you had such faith in government.

 

[Communisto]

By "Economic System," are you referring to slavery or the other parts such as agriculture and cotton? If the latter, I agree with your point. I am against economic regulation. You do have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Due to the bolded word, slavery is against the constitution.

What? Slavery was agriculture. The slaves weren't working in factories in Maine.

[1. No, I don't support murder. The death penalty is punishment for a crime. What crime did the aborted baby commit? At worst, his crime was that his/her father raped his/her mother, but that is not the baby's fault. If anything, its the rapist that needs to die, not the baby.

I'm not discussing the rest, as its so off topic, but number 1 was important IMO.

What was that thing god said about killing? Thou shall not kill unless you're really, really super sure the guy did something bad?

 

[Ayn Rand]

By "Economic System," are you referring to slavery or the other parts such as agriculture and cotton? If the latter, I agree with your point. I am against economic regulation. You do have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Due to the bolded word, slavery is against the constitution.

This is an interesting subject but I don't know enough about it to answer these questions - it is just an impression I got but I could be wrong [ie that the South was manipulated into wrong-footing itself]. I'll have to restrict myself to reading other people's comments in this discussion while I find a couple of good history books on what happened and study up.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

@D3k: The Middle East is not some monolithic bloc that "hates us" uniformly. Iran, IIRC, has one of the most pro-US populations, ironically (though it's debatable whether or not Iran is in the Middle East). Also, Europe is democratic, they would still exist if the US divided, so your other statement is not correct either. And finally, the crux of the issue, the 10th Amendment does not say that states can secede. However, there are provisions in the Constitution that the Union may raise an army and even temporarily suspend habeas corpus in the event of an insurrection, which negates any arguments in the 10th Amendment for secession.

 

[GhostWriter16]

@D3k: The Middle East is not some monolithic bloc that "hates us" uniformly. Iran, IIRC, has one of the most pro-US populations, ironically (though it's debatable whether or not Iran is in the Middle East). Also, Europe is democratic, they would still exist if the US divided, so your other statement is not correct either. And finally, the crux of the issue, the 10th Amendment does not say that states can secede. However, there are provisions in the Constitution that the Union may raise an army and even temporarily suspend habeas corpus in the event of an insurrection, which negates any arguments in the 10th Amendment for secession.

I oppose the suspension of Habeus Corpus and think that that part of it should be taken out (Through the legal means.) Yes, I disagree with Lincoln on this point.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

So? That doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.

 

[GhostWriter16]

So? That doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.

It isn't. It should be made unconstitutional, through the proper means of amending it.